2011-12-02 12:14, IcyPawn@aol.com wrote:
> Validating http://ghbservices.com/
> Error [66]: "document type does not allow element X here; assuming
> missing Y start-tag"
> I suggest changing this error to say, "document type does not allow
> element X here; assuming either missing Y start-tag or having an extra Y
> end-tag that should be removed."
The expression "assuming..." describes the validator's behavior in
parsing the document, i.e. what it assumes for the purposes of further
processing. It needs to be something specific.
Many of the validator's messages contain suggestions on what might be
the real cause of an error. But it seems that while they may help, they
may also mislead people - they are looking for something that just isn't
there, because their case is different.
In this case, the problem is in the markup
<li class="first"></li>
<ul><li>Many other specific tips</li></ul></li></ol></div>
When the <ul> tag is encountered, in the context of an </ol> element,
where only <li> elements are allowed as children, the validator reports
an error, and then it has to proceed. The most natural assumption is
that there's a <li> tag missing, and that's what the validator assumes.
This implies that the </li> tag after the </ul> tag is not reported as
an error, as it would match the implied <li> tag.
> That suggestion because my error
> message ('document type does not allow element "ul" here; assuming
> missing "li" start-tag') didn't make any sense to me.
Apparently you misunderstood the "assuming" part, but how else could the
statement be formulated. I can't think of a _short_ formulation that
would convey the idea better.
Yucca